I think most would agree that this DE read option play has been a significant part of the offensive success lately. I am no expert, but my understanding from years past has always been that *nobody* in the NFL runs "the option" very much because pro defenses are trained to ignore the ball and kill the QB. Now Russell is pretty darned elusive and it seems he's been well trained not to risk serious contact. But I can't help but think if it were some other team having consistent success with that play against the Seahawks, I'd want someone the pop the QB hard.

Also, when RW does hand the ball off he always fakes running outside with it - which is part of the play's success. Honest question: is it not within the rules to nail the QB if he fakes running outside with the ball?

Generally speaking perhaps the advent of QB-protectionism in the rules is leading to increased use of QB option plays in general (Newton, RG3).

Also one last tidbit: As a CFL fan I have seen the Calgary Stampeders run that play with quite a bit with success over the past few years, far more than any other CFL (and I believe NFL) team. Seems like a long shot but I wonder if Brandon Browner might have anything to do with the Seahawks implementing it.

I am a little worried that they will find some tell in the read option that will get Smith out on the edge alone with Russell, or worse yet, one of the LBer's...I'd hate to see Russell take a straight shot from Bowman, for instance.

That said, I am sure that the 9er's feel the same way about Chancellor coming off the edge on a safety blitz. No thank you.

makkapakka wrote: I am no expert, but my understanding from years past has always been that *nobody* in the NFL runs "the option" very much because pro defenses are trained to ignore the ball and kill the QB.

That's because that statement is pertaining to 'the option' meaning the old triple option where the QB sprints out and either keeps the ball or pitches to one of the RB's...and in that 'option' he is ALWAYS taking a hit on every play. That is not the kind of option we are running here.

yes, a little, but it's a risk I'm ok with Pete (and RW) taking. It's really no different than having Lynch take 30+ carries. Each additional touch means a higher chance of injury, but he's too good NOT to give the carries to.

"People who don't punch their ponies in the face make me sick." - Louis C.K.

makkapakka wrote: I am no expert, but my understanding from years past has always been that *nobody* in the NFL runs "the option" very much because pro defenses are trained to ignore the ball and kill the QB.

That's because that statement is pertaining to 'the option' meaning the old triple option where the QB sprints out and either keeps the ball or pitches to one of the RB's...and in that 'option' he is ALWAYS taking a hit on every play. That is not the kind of option we are running here.

Ah thanks. I did not realize that "the option" referred specifically to that play.

Can anyone confirm whether or not it's fair game to hit the QB if he fakes running with the ball?

I have more fears about him getting hurt on sacks within the pocket then outside the pocket. He seems very aware to be smart and not take hits. On occasion he'll take a huge on a 3rd or 4th down in an important situation (like chicago), but I think he'll be just fine.

lukerguy wrote:I have more fears about him getting hurt on sacks within the pocket then outside the pocket. He seems very aware to be smart and not take hits. On occasion he'll take a huge on a 3rd or 4th down in an important situation (like chicago), but I think he'll be just fine.

True enough. His only hit of the Buf game (and I think worst hit of the season) was the sack on the delayed blitz on I think it was the first play.

makkapakka wrote: I am no expert, but my understanding from years past has always been that *nobody* in the NFL runs "the option" very much because pro defenses are trained to ignore the ball and kill the QB.

That's because that statement is pertaining to 'the option' meaning the old triple option where the QB sprints out and either keeps the ball or pitches to one of the RB's...and in that 'option' he is ALWAYS taking a hit on every play. That is not the kind of option we are running here.

Ah thanks. I did not realize that "the option" referred specifically to that play.

Can anyone confirm whether or not it's fair game to hit the QB if he fakes running with the ball?

For one game in high school, I got continually crushed carrying out the play fake, but there was never a flag. Whether it is allowed or not in the NFL, I don't know. Point being, after that, all I had to do was carry out the play fake without watching the runner and watching the defense. Pretty easy to avoid a hit when doing that.

"People who don't punch their ponies in the face make me sick." - Louis C.K.

He had the exact same tendencies in college. I remember scouting one of his games and during that game he ripped off a winding ~25 yard run and was within a sniff of the endzone. If it had been Jake Locker, he would have sold out, taken the huge hit, and probably scored. Wilson slid at the 7 with defenders still a couple yards away from him. He scored a very easy passing TD on the next play.

He could have sold out and got the touchdown a play earlier, but that's why fullback built Locker is an injury magnet and Wilson is an iron man in a 206 pound body.

kearly wrote:He had the exact same tendencies in college. I remember scouting one of his games and during that game he ripped off a winding ~25 yard run and was within a sniff of the endzone. If it had been Jake Locker, he would have sold out, taken the huge hit, and probably scored. Wilson slid at the 7 with defenders still a couple yards away from him. He scored a very easy passing TD on the next play.

He could have sold out and got the touchdown a play earlier, but that's why fullback built Locker is an injury magnet and Wilson is an iron man in a 206 pound body.

2 other points Kip. First is stout index. Divide weight by height in inches. At 208 and 5'11, RW is a stout dude. Second is, because he is shorter, it makes it harder for the big boys to get UNDER RW's pads where they can really do damage.

"We don't even need your stupid a-- that much. We can win Super Bowls with retired Kerry f------- Collins right now, and you want to be the highest paid player of all-time? F--- you." - Tical21 to Russell Wilson, 6/30/15

The person pointing out that this is different than the option play is spot on. That is what RW ran in college his first year

If you blindside RW outside the pocket you get the flag for hitting defenseless player. So the hit has to come pretty much head on and he should watch out for those. You can still get (and probably would) unnecesarry roughness or something similiar

Haha, no kidding. I'll never forget watching the Hawks beat up on SF at Baxters a few years ago with other .netters. Some non-netter schmuck was there, and my buddy & I played a drinking game - every time someone complains about Alexander, we drink.

First play, Shaun gets about 6 yards and gets tackled. Schmuck says "He kind of pussed out there, could have got a few more yards."

I got pretty wasted that day.

Anyway, one of my favorite Hawk stories to tell, continue with the discussion...

"We don't even need your stupid a-- that much. We can win Super Bowls with retired Kerry f------- Collins right now, and you want to be the highest paid player of all-time? F--- you." - Tical21 to Russell Wilson, 6/30/15

Excatly... running back, vs QB... its a no brainer... but none the less a true statement.SA was a pansy ass. he would have negitive yards per carry on this team.... beucase he would drop down right when he got handed the ball.. LOL jk.

I was thinking the same thing, and I've watched HOW RW runs compared to other QB's his risk is way lower because the kid is so smart. Watching San fran's QB run compared to Russ you can tell we may see Smith late in the game Sunday

ScarScream wrote:You guys won't be playing the Bills every week. Just saying..

They probably have one of the worst defense in the league. I don't see RW using it a lot against the Niners.

I love how everyone's excuse for our back-to-back 50-burgers is "those teams sucked". Guess what? EVERY team plays several CRAPPY teams every year. You'd be hard-pressed to find a team in the last 20 years that only played two BAD teams in a year. They still don't put up 50 points on them except very rarely. So yes, it needs to be accounted for, but the entire thing getting discounted as "lulz, crappy opponents" is just asinine, and frankly, it reeks of jealousy.

ScarScream wrote:You guys won't be playing the Bills every week. Just saying..

They probably have one of the worst defense in the league. I don't see RW using it a lot against the Niners.

I love how everyone's excuse for our back-to-back 50-burgers is "those teams sucked". Guess what? EVERY team plays several CRAPPY teams every year. You'd be hard-pressed to find a team in the last 20 years that only played two BAD teams in a year. They still don't put up 50 points on them except very rarely. So yes, it needs to be accounted for, but the entire thing getting discounted as "lulz, crappy opponents" is just asinine, and frankly, it reeks of jealousy.

This poster officially refuses to recognize SacHawk2.0 as a moderator or authority figure of any description.